4 ms·

>It’s absolutely mind-boggling that virtually every major outlet in the world reporting the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling yesterday has failed to mentio

>It’s absolutely mind-boggling that virtually every major outlet in the world reporting the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling yesterday has failed to mention one of the most important facts of the entire case. Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes. This is a minefield of an offensive topic, but I will give it a shot. Each outlet has a narrative that all stories support. "Right wing" outlets like Breitbart run the narrative that women are being pushed out of their own sports organizations by (insert polite term for all of the recent expansions to the definition of women here.) Most others run the narrative that this expanding definition has no negative consequences and we all accept it with jubilation. Reporting the XY chromosome detail could cause some readers to support the opposing narrative.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
This is the obvious reality that people still have a hard time processing: "My opponents news is obviously biased, but my own is not" There's a massive intersectional narrative at stake whereupon reality can be bent if need be in this case. My original encounter with this story was the IOC's decision to allow Caster to compete: the NYT had a story supporting it, I thought it was enlightening. Until my bias radar went off and I did further research and found 'the most relevant facts' changed the story quite dramatically. The NYT left out the fact she was intersex / hermaphrodite entirely! So why would even the NYT leave out such critical information? Google 'caster semeny new york times' for the latest headlines. Among them you'll find 'The Myth of Testosterone' - trying to convince us that we really don't have any advantage due to testosterone! It's interesting but ultimately maligned, so one must wonder why they'd take up such a position that should undermine their credibility? The issue is identity: reality seems to be less important than people's right to choose their own expression, which is a current 'rights' issue ... and so the truth gets utterly muddled. It's one thing when it has no consequence, it's another thing altogether when power/rights are bestowed due to it. We're tricked with language: 'women' to most has biological implications, though we recognized not always. But when headlines such as this appear (in Quartz): "The demonization of Caster Semenya’s womanhood is part of a dark history in female athletics" And this classic from Vox: "I am a woman and I am fast: what Caster Semenya’s story says about gender and race in sports The constant scrutiny into the runner’s medical history reveals what happens to women who don’t conform to stereotypes." I think this headline really summarized the root of misinformation: Caster is a woman by choice. She could have ostensibly chosen the male identity. She has utterly fundamental biological differences that are material in sport. Which in her life, is her business of course; but in sport, it becomes another issue. So when they refer to her as 'female' and then reference the antagonism to her, it's a terrible straw-man. Caster is not just a woman who 'doesn't conform to stereotypes'. Having male sex apparatus, XY chromosomes, and the testosterone of a male athlete which endows her with considerable and obvious advantage ... is not a 'stereotype'. Effectively, a false parallel is drawn between trans people under scrutiny for 'non conforming identity' issues, into Caster's situation, where there are material differences to be addressed. It's an information war unfortunately.
- pas 7y ago
  The NYT article seems simple, what are they leaving out? It mentions that mid-distance running seems to be testosterone independent, yet the ruling mandates to lower her levels.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    The article I'm referencing was from back during the Olympics, when the IOC ruled she could run, sorry I did not find the link. There was no mention of the fact she was intersex. In terms of the article you reference, first: "mid-distance running seems to be testosterone independent" this is highly speculative, and I say bogus. Men utterly dominate women in that sport, and most of the differentiator is 'testosterone'. Most importantly - Caster is not famale. She is a woman, yes, but her sex is not male or female, she is intersex. We divide sports ultimately on the basis of sex, not really 'gender self identification'. The NYT et. al. are oddly trying to conflate gender and sex due to their concern about 'rights'. They are creating a straw men situation "people attacked female athlete's in the past" as though this is 'more of same'. It's not - there's totally reasonable and fair grounds to discuss the intersex positioning in all of this. If someone has the testosterone levels of a man (and testicles that produce it) has XY chromosomes ... well maybe they ought not to be competing with other women for whom this would be very unfair?
    - pas 7y ago
      > Men utterly dominate women in that sport, and most of the differentiator is 'testosterone'. Naturally, but maybe because they are bigger (and have bigger muscles, and have better VO2max?) and that's probably not due to testosterone, but due to the whole body having the male body plan set as set-point from a very young age. > Most importantly - Caster is not famale. She is a woman, yes, but her sex is not male or female, she is intersex. I'm simply not up to date on this topic to know. What female means? Is that a biological only term? If yes, does it mean having only female-like characteristics? Is that a genetics term? Of course, the whole problem is that whatever dimensions we look at, in terms of athletic/sports performance, in (almost?) every sport based on some biomechanical activity the distribution of outcome has a nice bimodal shape, and it kind of makes sense to make two leagues/categories, to make races interesting. And naturally, where these distributions intersect with the other very bimodal distribution (that is the spectrum of biological sex, or male-female-ness), we find that in almost all cases it matches the male-ness or female-ness part, so it was easy to sort athletes into their respective leagues, but the middle part was never empty. There was always females that were bigger/faster/stronger than some males, and of course their female-ness was regularly questioned on the basis of fairness. (Which is a completely valid question.) > If someone has the testosterone levels of a man (and testicles that produce it) has XY chromosomes ... well maybe they ought not to be competing with other women for whom this would be very unfair? Yes, and I would have no problem with saying that we don't know exactly what makes her better, maybe it's not testosterone per se, but it clearly seems to be biologically based more than based on how well she trains, what kind of shoes she wears, etc. And I don't know how the Athletic Federation (and the Court of Arbitration) argued exactly, but it seems that the NYT op-ed claims that they cited something that does not make sense (the too high testosterone levels), and in that regard the op-ed is probably right. (Hence why I called their argument simple, not the problem.)
PavlovsCat 7y ago
https://terfisaslur.com/erasing-female-biology/ https://terfisaslur.com/erasing-female-biology/ Is it right-wing to not accept that with jubilation? What does right-wing mean at that point other than doubleplusungood? Thinking biology and hormones matter and saying so, no matter with how much respect and how much scientific fact, is increasingly subject to censorship. > Reporting the XY chromosome detail could cause some readers to support the opposing narrative. So could not flagging this story, so it must be flagged, I guess. But it's all in service of something "we" all agree to with jubilation, all enemies are a monolith, they're right-wingers, while no brainwashing can be found over here.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

This is the obvious reality that people still have a hard time processing: "My opponents news is obviously biased, but my own is not" There's a massive intersectional narrative at stake whereupon reality can be bent if need be in this case. My original encounter with this story was the IOC's decision to allow Caster to compete: the NYT had a story supporting it, I thought it was enlightening. Until my bias radar went off and I did further research and found 'the most relevant facts' changed the story quite dramatically. The NYT left out the fact she was intersex / hermaphrodite entirely! So why would even the NYT leave out such critical information? Google 'caster semeny new york times' for the latest headlines. Among them you'll find 'The Myth of Testosterone' - trying to convince us that we really don't have any advantage due to testosterone! It's interesting but ultimately maligned, so one must wonder why they'd take up such a position that should undermine their credibility? The issue is identity: reality seems to be less important than people's right to choose their own expression, which is a current 'rights' issue ... and so the truth gets utterly muddled. It's one thing when it has no consequence, it's another thing altogether when power/rights are bestowed due to it. We're tricked with language: 'women' to most has biological implications, though we recognized not always. But when headlines such as this appear (in Quartz): "The demonization of Caster Semenya’s womanhood is part of a dark history in female athletics" And this classic from Vox: "I am a woman and I am fast: what Caster Semenya’s story says about gender and race in sports The constant scrutiny into the runner’s medical history reveals what happens to women who don’t conform to stereotypes." I think this headline really summarized the root of misinformation: Caster is a woman by choice. She could have ostensibly chosen the male identity. She has utterly fundamental biological differences that are material in sport. Which in her life, is her business of course; but in sport, it becomes another issue. So when they refer to her as 'female' and then reference the antagonism to her, it's a terrible straw-man. Caster is not just a woman who 'doesn't conform to stereotypes'. Having male sex apparatus, XY chromosomes, and the testosterone of a male athlete which endows her with considerable and obvious advantage ... is not a 'stereotype'. Effectively, a false parallel is drawn between trans people under scrutiny for 'non conforming identity' issues, into Caster's situation, where there are material differences to be addressed. It's an information war unfortunately.

pas 7y ago
The NYT article seems simple, what are they leaving out? It mentions that mid-distance running seems to be testosterone independent, yet the ruling mandates to lower her levels.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  The article I'm referencing was from back during the Olympics, when the IOC ruled she could run, sorry I did not find the link. There was no mention of the fact she was intersex. In terms of the article you reference, first: "mid-distance running seems to be testosterone independent" this is highly speculative, and I say bogus. Men utterly dominate women in that sport, and most of the differentiator is 'testosterone'. Most importantly - Caster is not famale. She is a woman, yes, but her sex is not male or female, she is intersex. We divide sports ultimately on the basis of sex, not really 'gender self identification'. The NYT et. al. are oddly trying to conflate gender and sex due to their concern about 'rights'. They are creating a straw men situation "people attacked female athlete's in the past" as though this is 'more of same'. It's not - there's totally reasonable and fair grounds to discuss the intersex positioning in all of this. If someone has the testosterone levels of a man (and testicles that produce it) has XY chromosomes ... well maybe they ought not to be competing with other women for whom this would be very unfair?
  - pas 7y ago
    > Men utterly dominate women in that sport, and most of the differentiator is 'testosterone'. Naturally, but maybe because they are bigger (and have bigger muscles, and have better VO2max?) and that's probably not due to testosterone, but due to the whole body having the male body plan set as set-point from a very young age. > Most importantly - Caster is not famale. She is a woman, yes, but her sex is not male or female, she is intersex. I'm simply not up to date on this topic to know. What female means? Is that a biological only term? If yes, does it mean having only female-like characteristics? Is that a genetics term? Of course, the whole problem is that whatever dimensions we look at, in terms of athletic/sports performance, in (almost?) every sport based on some biomechanical activity the distribution of outcome has a nice bimodal shape, and it kind of makes sense to make two leagues/categories, to make races interesting. And naturally, where these distributions intersect with the other very bimodal distribution (that is the spectrum of biological sex, or male-female-ness), we find that in almost all cases it matches the male-ness or female-ness part, so it was easy to sort athletes into their respective leagues, but the middle part was never empty. There was always females that were bigger/faster/stronger than some males, and of course their female-ness was regularly questioned on the basis of fairness. (Which is a completely valid question.) > If someone has the testosterone levels of a man (and testicles that produce it) has XY chromosomes ... well maybe they ought not to be competing with other women for whom this would be very unfair? Yes, and I would have no problem with saying that we don't know exactly what makes her better, maybe it's not testosterone per se, but it clearly seems to be biologically based more than based on how well she trains, what kind of shoes she wears, etc. And I don't know how the Athletic Federation (and the Court of Arbitration) argued exactly, but it seems that the NYT op-ed claims that they cited something that does not make sense (the too high testosterone levels), and in that regard the op-ed is probably right. (Hence why I called their argument simple, not the problem.)

PavlovsCat 7y ago

https://terfisaslur.com/erasing-female-biology/ https://terfisaslur.com/erasing-female-biology/ Is it right-wing to not accept that with jubilation? What does right-wing mean at that point other than doubleplusungood? Thinking biology and hormones matter and saying so, no matter with how much respect and how much scientific fact, is increasingly subject to censorship. > Reporting the XY chromosome detail could cause some readers to support the opposing narrative. So could not flagging this story, so it must be flagged, I guess. But it's all in service of something "we" all agree to with jubilation, all enemies are a monolith, they're right-wingers, while no brainwashing can be found over here.